Homo Toxicus, directed by Carole Poliquin, intitial release in 2008 by Bullfrog Films
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Seemed that the recurring question in the film is whether or not ingesting the primary or secondary sources of chemicals and toxins have an affect on human health or not, and the industry banks on correlation between the two being hard and almost impossible to prove. Unfortunately, as someone says in the film, "it can't be proven, but we all know it's happening."
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example?
The film first follows Carole with her own experience dealing with her own toxicology results that showed she was positive for 110 different chemicals, then went on to look at communities that are chemical contamination hotspots, and then went on to explaining how these problems are a result of a broken system in which industry influences government regulation and research.
Does the film have emotional appeal?
The video showed complete detailed pictures of genital malformation, which looks as though during development, a child's body was developing to be female and then half way through the process switched to becoming male. This image can be very shocking and sets this film apart from others because films usually just describe graphic and shocking images instead of showing the audience.
I noticed that the men in the film seem to have a hard time discussing their health issues, especially when related to sperm counts. I can imagine this can be devastating for anyone, man or woman, to discover that they no longer have the ability to have their own children.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
ANSWERED IN MY NOTES BELOW
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I am most compelled by how the director went about finding this information, how she followed her own health and searched into how her health is connected with sustainability issues in society.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
In this film, Canadian representatives claim that their use of the 'precautionary principle' is that if they note an eminent risk, they won't take it. BUT, that is NOT the Precautionary Principle, which states that if the possible consequences aren't known and it isn't proven safe, then don't risk it and wait until more information and research can prove the thing in question safe. I found it interesting that they use the term eminent as well, because I know from the history of it's use in law that 'eminent' can be subject to interpretation and cause many controversies.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I feel that because of the format of the film, how Carole went looking into her own personal health and followed a line of questioning from there would really connect with people, like myself, who are health conscious and who might have health issues they are already dealing with. This would also speak directly to the communities that are dealing with chemical contamination in their own environment, and reminds me strongly of what the communities around fracking sites are experiencing.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It would have been nice to see more on how involved industry is in covering up or keeping quiet the chemical pollution practices and health effects that they can be linked with. I don't think the general public sees how much of this industry is involved in, I feel like I am just beginning to understand it myself.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
This film didn't seem to suggest any kind of action to help solve these issues in society, but rather showed the audience how they can become informed about their own lives and how their health is being impacted. What to do with the information you find is really up to you and choosing your own way of life, but it would have been nice for the film to provide suggestions for your own health as well as what you can do for the public's health.
I would have liked to seen a discussion between the health care profession and environmental groups, to see if there are any suggestions being made on how to deal with symptoms that are in fact a result of exposure to toxins that were released into the environment.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I've been taking notice and sometimes collecting articles and information on what environmental factors can have an impact on the immune system and insulin, as well as other endocrine issues, and this is more of a personal pursuit and curiosity.
Film Notes
I've noticed that these films start out by sounding like a commercial with someone's monotone but appealing soft voice promoting business and progress at first, and then it shifts to something that shocks you like the chemical transference from mother to child.
"public health specialist" is very vague, speaks french and located in canada, so this speaker is VERY VAGUE in credentials to be included in film, but again this is directed by a woman about her own experience at first with her own chemical toxicology report so may be used to show an example of a professional that the public at large could be talking to about their concerns
I'm even noticing that with my own work, is that you can focus in on the experts or you could focus on a real life scenario where you won't be dealing with experts that are current but someone you trust to have the knowledge you seek from a credential like a medical degree, and the best option seems to be covering both available data sets
which combo of environmental factors is the cause of a health reaction is very hard to figure out, so the environment is pretty much ignored when it comes to a diagnosis
I asked Yuri Gobi about whether the families being affected by the fracking in their area were being recorded on medical records at all and he said that the hospitals and clinics aren't set up that way and that even if they were the nurses and doctors were more likely to explain a symptom through other means they are used to seeing than to consider it a result of something in their environment. At the public discussion on hydro-fracking held at RPI, I added a suggestion that in general we should address how our health care system doesn't address or record environmental issues at all. My suggestion is that is hospitals and clinics were to record symptoms of patients that could have been caused by environmental factors, such as exposure to chemicals in their environment, then it would be possible to map out these instances using GIS mapping techniques. Then it might be possible to document chemical hotspots and address these issues earlier with more evidence.
Carole's toxicology blood results showed 20 toxic chemicals in her blood, but most being within the "normal" range. These included flame retardants, pesticides, even DDT. She tested positive with 110 chemicals.
basic principle of toxicology is the dose that makes the poison dangerous,
the film explained the process of chemical concentration in food chain to reach humans, how it bio-accumulates in the food and in your bodies, and is then passed on only through breastfeeding to babies.
it's a possibility there's a link between PCB's and thyroid problems such as diabetes, however individual illnesses do not have a single cause, so scientists and researchers can't correlate one to the other.
I found this particularly interesting because I have Type 1 diabetes and was diagnosed when I was 19 about to turn 20. I have heard of this in a few different places recently, about PCB's having a possible link to diabetes. My doctors have had a hard time understanding how I am Type 1 diabetic and am a young adult still producing my own insulin. The medical field has been discovering more people like me and have labeled many of them as an in between Type 1 and Type 2. So I mentioned this to my endocrinologist when I was in for a visit where they realized I didn't need insulin shots at all yet, and asked about what he thought of environmental factors. He was slightly surprised and was confused, how would I have come in contact and had exposure to any of those chemicals, he hadn't thought to ask before. I simply replied that I grew up swimming and fishing in the river that is now known to have PSB's. He was surprised, but didn't think much of it, replying that there isn't enough evidence to support anything as of yet, and that my exposure most likely wasn't enough to trigger by diabetes. I personally don't think it triggered it either, but that it's a response to several simultaneous factors. However, I did find the conversation and his response very interesting.
The Inuit have a high concentration of exposure to PCB's and mercury, and their children are having hearing problems, recurring ear infections, deteriorating ear drums, along with other health issues.
A doctor questioned the passing of chemicals through breastmilk to children in 1989, he followed children through their development, and the more they were exposed the more they suffered infections.
Chemicals can weaken an immune system so you become more susceptible to becoming sick, while other chemicals can boost an immune system and trigger it, which isn't always a good thing because it can lead to triggering autoimmune disorders and allergies.
Information & Technology -
arctic marine animals are having higher levels of chemical contamination, and this is the Inuit's staple food source, so their population has a higher chance at being affected. By looking at the geographical concentration of chemical use and their affect on the local population, you can sometimes figure out which chemical is causing what. This is why I suggested having the health care system involved in recording symptoms and mapping it out, the maps could be compared to maps of what chemicals are leaked where and when as well, and could provide the evidence needed to protect the people from further exposure.
They are finding an increase in ADD, which is multifactorial including the classroom environment, social state, and the role of certain toxic substances.
PBDE's are flame retardants that leach out of fabrics into the enclosed indoor environment that you're in constant contact with. PBDE's double in concentration in breast milk every 5 years, resulting in health implications in women and children, and researchers are now finding possible effects at the lower everyday doses.
John Peterson Myer, author of "Our Stolen Future", wrote and researched on how genes interact with chemicals, including how just lower level contamination can affect how genes behave.
BPA (bis-phenol A) changes cell signaling at low levels of exposure and causes serious effects such as cancers and insulin resistance. The "accepted levels are 50 ppm", except these 12 studies funded by industry never tested further, so they never found issues.
Non-stick cookware such as Teflon affects insulin resistance
cosmetics contain carcinogenic chemicals, and this is true of most personal care products, even those approved for children such as toothpaste.
This reminds me of my friend who has fibromyalgia because she couldn't use basically any personal care products from stores because the chemicals in them would give her gruesome headaches and body pains.
Dr. Hayden and 2 other veterinary scientists were fired because they opposed the use of a hormone in cows, and the customer didn't understand why it mattered if the hormone cause cancer in the cows because the cows are being killed for food anyway. He seemed to completely miss the point that eating the cows with cancer can have a negative affect on the beings eating it, including humans.
I think before I have children of my own I will get a toxicology report done...
The film mentions the cultural preference of change resistance
"Chemical Valley" is where the children are found to be allergic to mosquito bites and now twice as many girls are born as boys. The community has a high incidence of miscarriage when it comes to being pregnant with a boy. In terms of systems thinking you have to question how the gap in gender at all ages is affecting their society and their culture, social aspects, gender roles, and more.
Ada Lockridge is on the Environmental Committee in Chemical Valley and she is frustrated with the situation because "they" keep telling her and the community that smoking, alcohol, and drugs are the causes of their health problems. "It's hard to think about this stuff all the time because, yeah it hurts you, but it will hurt you inside too if you don't take a break from it."
Starting in 1993, male fetuses have been very fragile and they haven't been able to pinpoint the causes yet. They don't know if a change started in 1993 or if it was started before hand and was delayed and triggered when the exposed male adults contributed to a child's conception. They still don't know the process or what changed in industry.
Behavioral/Cultural -
the wording, "region runs through corn and soy fields" sounds very strange because shouldn't it be that there are corn and soy fields running through the region? The first wording makes it sound as though the crop production was there first and that the region doesn't belong, but is a visitor passing through or something. I wonder what economic and power play is going on in the region that would make a community feel so out of place and of no control that they subconsciously word things in that way.
Farmer also mentioned that the data collected on the males aren't accurate because the symptoms that males often have are hidden. Also I noticed that the men in the film seem to have a hard time discussing their health issues, especially when related to sperm counts. I can imagine this can be devastating for anyone, man or woman, to discover that they no longer have the ability to have their own children.
Government/Political/Economy/Research -
The NSF won't fund any research on pesticides, because industry has too much influence on government regulation, which is still pushing environmental regulation to be on a state level, making it harder for any sweeping regulation. It allows industry to pit states into a kind of bidding war in order to gain industry and economic growth in their state through offering less regulation and taxes.
Today, it's about risk-management and 'smart regulation' approaches, which is corporate and thinktank driven, groups that put economic concern on the same priority level as health and safety, giving weight to business costs. Industry keeps insisting there is not enough testing to prove this or that.
There are new technology such as nanotechnology and transgenic agriculture where we don't know the risks, but we seem to be running blindly after those profits.
Film Annotations - Homo Toxicus
1. Title, director and release year?
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example?
Does the film have emotional appeal?
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
Film Notes